Forfeiture – Proportionality – House

Listen to this article

Where a defendant has raised an Eighth Amendment challenge to the forfeiture of her house, that challenge should be rejected because the forfeiture of the house would not violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.

“Sathtra Em pleaded guilty to (1) conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute MDMA and buprenorphine and (2) two counts of money laundering conspiracy. On August 14, 2024, she was sentenced to 21 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $300 special assessment. On the same day, the Court took under advisement the government’s motion for preliminary forfeiture of property in order to consider defendant’s Eighth Amendment challenge to the forfeiture of her house. …

“A criminal forfeiture is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment if it is ‘grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense.’ United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998). There are three guiding factors for a court to consider in determining whether a forfeiture is grossly disproportionate: ‘(1) whether the defendant falls into the class of persons at whom the criminal statute was principally directed; (2) other penalties authorized by the legislature (or the Sentencing Commission); and (3) the harm caused by the defendant.’ United States v. Heldeman, 402 F.3d 220, 223 (1st Cir. 2005) (citing Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 334). All three Heldeman factors suggest that forfeiture of 8 Aberdeen in this case would be proportional.”

United States v. Em (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-434-24) (5 pages) (Saylor, C.J.) (Criminal No. 23-10009-FDS-2) (Sept. 12, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.